Saurabh Natvarlal Soparkar Vs ACIT (Ahmedabad High Court) it is evident that a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer with respect to Section 14A and the same was appropriately replied by the writ applicant. The same was accepted at the relevant point of time. Once again the very same issue is sought to […]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court provided relief to the Petitioner observing that in the absence of new facts coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the original assessment proceedings, the reopening could not […]
Proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act have to be preceded by a proper SCN – Jharkhand High Court quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in respect of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) as it was vogue, unclear and lacked serious details.
Punjab HC initiated CBI enquiry to fix liability of erring Customs Department and Anti Evasion GST Units in respect of clearing of Consignment without making any entry.
HC has held that an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) should necessarily be made with sound consideration and application of mind, and any absence thereof shall make the order liable to be set aside and would warrant imposition of substantial costs on such AO.
Section 54 of the CGST Act to ‘any person’ and would include the SEZ as well and accordingly, it shall be entitled to claim the refund of erroneously remitted tax.
HC directs Department is to open the portal and allow the Petitioner to file declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act.
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court have allowed the writ petition filed by the Company, wherein it was held that so far as the ownership of land is concerned, each company has right to purchase property and the Benami Act, 1988, would not extend to properties purchased by the company.
Balaji Services Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A declarant seeking remedy under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 shall be given an opportunity of being heard if their declaration is rejected The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Balaji Publicity vs. Union of India and others [WP No.3133/2021 and W.P. No.3130/2021 decided […]
Vineeet Kumar Vs Union of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while appearing in response to a notice under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the CGST Act), Section 116 of the CGST Act permits the […]
